Testing meaning construction: can we do it fairly?  

Oleh:

Sarig, Gissi

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Language Testing (Full Text & ada di PROQUEST dari th 1998 - terbaru) vol. 6 no. 1 (Jun. 1989), page 1-17.
Fulltext: 77.pdf (958.23KB)

Isi artikel

Variations in readers’ content schemata explain why different readers may construct different meanings for a given text and still be in the right. When aiming to reflect this meaning relatively in meaning construction tests, test developers may face theoretical, ethical and practical questions: Are any limits on the free interpretation of a text justifiable? If so, what are these limits? If these limits are set, how can they be reflected in a fair, objective and feasible reading test? Following principles emerging from work by Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) and Alderson and Short (1981), a meaning consensus criterion answer (MCCA) is suggested as a basis for a relative meaning reading comprehension test. The MCCA is derived from analyses of model answers of a sample of readers from diverse professional backgrounds and levels of expertise. Thus, the MCCA represents both essential, full-consensus components of text meaning, as well as partial, but still considerable, consensus components. It is recommended that the MCCA be used as a basis for item scoring in order to ensure a more feasible objective, yet more relative and, therefore, an unbiased tool for the testing of meaning construction. The paper includes a discussion of the theoretical rationale for the MCCA, and a detailed and an exemplified report on the procedures the MCCA involves. A discussion of MCCA reliability, interconsistency, discrimination power and score meaning follows, and suggestions for future research are made.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali